Alt-psychopathic status maximizers

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/877563552730562561

A while ago I called myself alt-right because hey, the God-Emperor got elected. Later, the elected has shown himself not to be much of a God, and certainly not an Emperor, and so I've lost my interest. And you would think everybody else had done so too, but then you wouldn't understand politics.

I haven't been following this very much, but apparently there's the alt-right, and now something called the alt-lite. What is the alt-lite?

How to answer this question? I could go on doing some reading about their positions, what they believe in. But that would be missing the point. If that's how you analize political movements then you haven't been reading this blog properly.

The point here is that the "alt-lite" is at the left of the alt-right; but their naming suggests that they want to contest the alt-right space. So by definition, the alt-lite are entryists who want to eat up the political space of the alt-right. And to do so, they will take whatever position, they will do whatever is necessary. Because the difference between left and right is not one of "beliefs". It is one of drive. The left are the psychopatic status maximizers. The right are those who are not. Relatively speaking, of course. So you can expect the alt-lite to be a psychopathic status maximizing version of the alt-right.

So what will they do? They'll keep Trump support, because there's a lot of money there. 60 million people voted for the man after all. They will tone down the Nazi stuff because there's little to gain there. You'll have a lot of women there. A lot of Jews. A lot of gays. A lot of fund-raising. A lot of media promotion. A lot of weird changing of positions according to what the media likes to hear at the moment.

There's a clip here which shows a good example to where this is moving:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLLPTxfm2G8

And you know what? They'll probably win. Because they have way more drive than your average chap on frog-Twitter. In a fight, the guy without scruples always beats the guy with scruples. The common thing to people who have achieved something in life is greed, the drive to achieve something at whatever cost and no matter how many people you should trample over in your way. These sociopaths genes exist for a reason. They work.

Until everything goes to hell and there's no more prosocial chumps to fool.

[…] Alt-psychopathic status maximizers […]

The Alt Lite is civic nationalism/citizenism. The_Donaldism. Their hero is "based black guy." The Alt Right recognize that minority births are now a majority in the US and that civic nationalism doesn't have a future. They are ethnonationalists. Identity politics for whites. They So much as it would be comforting to pretend that AL's pretensions towards AR's positions are driven by greed and status maximization - and to a significant extent that's certainly true - there is still a major ideological motive behind it. There are similar divisions in many European countries. For instance, in Russia, with which I am most familiar, it would be the division between basic bitch "vatniks" and "patriots" (of Rossiya), which contain many Jews and minorities in its upper echelons, and nationalists (of ethnic Russians), who are overwhelmingly russkie for obvious reasons.

That’s not an ideological “motive”. It’s an ideological tactic. It’s a result, not a cause. Just look at them. Do they seem honest to you? You've been documenting what a shameless self promoting ass Navalny is. Same thing.

Which bandwagon is next for you spandrell?

I don't get your point. We'll always have sociopatic status maximizerser on top. Who else could get, has ever gotten a top job? If now there's money to be made and status be gained by being "nationalistic", "patriotic" or something like that, this is a good sign showing that western civilization might still be saved. Being led by a sociopat is usually no problem. Odds are our civilization can survive that. Being overrun and replaced by foreigners is far worse and something we cannot survive. I'd rather have a Franco than a Merkel. Hell, I'll cheer for the right sociopat.

Well, your reason for calling yourself alt-right actually overlaps significantly with the motivations of the so-called "alt-lite." Rallying around Trump as a status symbol and otherwise expressing the Alex Jones platform of the American civic religion souverainism -- the logical view to hold in this circumstance. The alt-right is now paying for its decision to engage the spotlight. Besides, the alt-right has no one to patrol the gates, so it's not so much a case of entryism as it is of homesteading on terra nullius. For a long time the alt-lite were tolerated as useful idiots, but now... And speaking of "a lot of gays," Spandrell, need I remind you: https://imgur.com/a/x4uSX

Remind me of what? Who's that guy?

If Franco had been a sociopathic status maximizer he would have sided with the Popular Front; as plenty of generals did. He was certainly cold-blooded but there is nothing shameless in his career. Sociopathic status maximizers will always move left. This alt-lite Jewish women will first make money out of Trump supporters; then after they have name recognition they'll agitate to make Trumpism be all about toilet rights for trannies and jail time for Islamophobia.

I'm waiting for White Sharia to go mainstream.

In 2016, the alt-right heroically shifted the Overton window. That's a victory. When you shift the Overton window, when among the results of the shift is that some persons who are not on our side colonize the newly open political ground, why, what did we expect to happen? Whether the alt-right enjoys further victories during 2017 depends chiefly on Trump, but if we wish the general center-right public to thank us for introducing them to Kek, we shall be disappointed. Personally, I don't care about Central Park's Ceasar-as-Trump disrupter one way or the other. Moreover, though I like and value free speech as much as the next Anglo-Saxon does, I have ceased to be a pro-free-speech ideologue. Rather, like Molyneux, I have become an ethnonationalist pro-victory ideologue. I mean to win to the extent to which I can. I wish that I better understood the psychopathic status maximizers. Your article illuminates them.

P.S. Richard B. Spencer, whom I admire, does not make many mistakes but I don't see the benefit in his broadside against Central Park’s Ceasar-as-Trump disrupter. To defend the Left is not our job. Let the Left defend the Left. Personally, I am probably too orderly and middle-aged a citizen to materially disturb the peace myself, but I don't buy the notion that U.S. patriots are going to feel sorry for Leftist weasels whose activities are violently disrupted. Unfortunately, it is too late to address these problems nonviolently. The only question is whether we will [a] fight back and [b] fight to win. (I believe that we will.)

Best to just call it the entryist Jews. Behind every one of them is a desperate neocon who absolutely will not let status maxing get in the way of toeing the line.

"Richard B. Spencer, whom I admire" https://soundcloud.com/pozzcast/ep2-the-unbearable-whiteness-of-being-richard-spencer

OK, Franco was no sociopath. Sociopatic status maximizers signaling will be that they are holy. As times change so does what is holy or "left". Status signaling can be about tranny rights and gay marriage or -for people with different believes- about gas the fags. Sometimes people believe that ist holy to settle hordes of strangers in their midst, sometimes that it is holy to kill all foreigners. Your premiss seems to be that all Westerns have essentially the same religion. I think this is no longer true. Signals work only within one group; it does not work on a group with different believes. For example, signalling about toilet rights makes you holy in progressive circles. It wouldn't work so well for an aspiring leader of IS.

Right now, progressivism is the state religion. It is by far the strongest religion, the one which holds all the power and all the money. It follows that the most dedicated psychopathic status maximizers will all eventually try to find a way to gain status inside progressivism. Compared to the money and fame that progressive status can give you, right-wing status is a pittance. Some people are content with that, but that's because they're not that greedy, or because for some reason they are completely barred from gaining progressive status, so they must seek an alternative; but that's a fairly rare case. Progressives are fairly open.

He probably just dislikes the fat Jewess and he has a point.

Spandrell: Most of your articles are interesting, but this one particularly so. There are a lot of layers through which to drill down here. I suspect that the question will defy easy explication. Three months ago, you were trying to figure out Gnon's will. Do you remember the two British brothers, the ones who shared edgy genes? I believe that you are right: edginess is a quality all its own. The alt-right wants institutions, but experience suggests that edgy persons don't cooperate well enough to collectively build up and maintain institutions, whereas most alt-rightists have heretofore been edgy persons. Is edginess not partly why, in the Anglo-Saxon countries—whose MPs and Congressmen are elected first-past-the-post—national-coalition parties with soft, blurry ideological foci dominate? Is edginess not wholly why small parties with coherent ideologies fail, torn apart by internal dissent?—or, in the rare cases in which they don't fail, why they rapidly become national-coalition parties with soft, blurry ideological foci? When they don't fail, it is because nonedgers have moved in, taken over, and sidelined the founders. The ultimate triumph of the nonedgers may be a constant of human nature, impossible to fight. Hegel seemed to think so, at any rate.

I'm no particular fan of Spencer, especially since he got fat, but this podcast is just some lame envious piece of butthurt.

Every once in a while you need an uber-edgy guy, an evil bully, a brutal sociopath dictator to dominate everyone else. A Roosevelt, a Steve Jobs. Part of that is in restricting access of edgy strivers and promote loyal people. The more open the system is the more strivers are able to get ahead and dismantle cohesion of the system. Which can be a good thing; North Korea is very cohesive.

Later, the elected has shown himself not to be much of a God, and certainly not an Emperor, and so I’ve lost my interest. And you would think everybody else had done so too, but then you wouldn’t understand politics. yeah ..this presidency thus far has been unsurprisingly uneventful especially given all the hype and predictions of how Trump would either destroy or save America.